Punjab

Sangrur

CC/542/2015

Gurnam Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajinder Goyal

15 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    542

                                                Instituted on:      01.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       15.01.2016

 

1. Gurnam Kaur widow of Pritam Singh, 2. Charanjit Singh, 3.Karamjit Singh, Amritpal Singh sons of Pritam Singh, all residents of village Mohmadpur Rasuldar Channa, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainants

                                        Versus

1.     The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala through its M.D.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, P.S.P.C.L. Operation City Sub Division, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainants   :       Shri Rajinder Goyal, Advocate.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Sudarshan Garg, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt.Gurnam Kaur and his three sons, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that Pritam Singh husband of complainant number 1 (referred to as deceased in short) was the consumer of the OPs by getting domestic electricity connection bearing account number S42GS220082K and now the complainants are the consumers of the said connection. It is further averred that the complainant is the owner of two trucks including the truck bearing registration number PB-10-H-9699 and was operating the same through the truck union, Sangrur.   It is further averred that the truck bearing registration number PB-10-H-9699 was standing in the grain market, Sangrur due to some technical defect.  It is further averred that on 3.2.2014, the deceased in order to get repaired the said truck had brought the truck after towing the same with another vehicle to the workshop of Tinku Mistri, the truck was separated from the another vehicle then Charanjit Singh sat down on the driver seat and the deceased and Paramjit Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Rakesh Kumar started to push the truck for the purpose of taking it to the shop of the mechanic, at the same time the truck came downwards and tilted towards left side and touched the electric wires, as a result of electrocution, the deceased died at the spot. It is further averred that the said Charanjit Singh raised the alarm and the people gathered at the spot and brought the deceased, Sukhwinder Singh and Rakesh Kumar to the Civil Hospital, Sangrur and the Pritam Singh deceased was declared to brought dead in the hospital.  It is further averred that the electrocution took place due to the loose electric wires, which were passing near the shop of Mohinder Pal.  The complainant also got the post-mortem conducted on the dead body of Pritam Singh from the Civil Hospital, Sangrur and police also recorded DDR number 54 dated 3.2.2014 at PS City Sangrur.  It is further averred that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by operating the said trucks and due to the death of the deceased, the complainants have suffered a lot of loss, as such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of Shri Pritam Singh and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the deceased was operating the trucks in order to earn huge profits and commercial element is involved, that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs, that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.  On merits, it is denied by the OPs that the deceased Pritam Singh was the consumer of the connection in question. It has been denied that the complainants are using the electricity through the above said connection. Further it is denied that the Pritam Singh was the owner of the truck in question bearing registration number PB-10-H-9699 and other truck. It has been denied that the electrocution took place due to loose wires. It is stated that the complainant never approached the OPs regarding the accident in question.  It is stated that the DDR number 54 dated 3.2.2014 recorded at PS City Sangrur nowhere mentions that the accident took place due to the loose wires and not at proper height.  However, any deficiency or negligence on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of DDR , Ex.C-2 copy of post-mortem report, Ex.C-3 copy of death certificate, Ex.C-4 electricity bill,  Ex.C-5 newspaper, Ex.C-6 copy of admission register, Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-11 affidavits, Ex.C-12 copy of police report and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP1 affidavit, Ex.OP2, copy of bill dated 21.11.2012, Ex.OP-3 copy of service register and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             In the present case, the complainant has filed the present complaint claiming compensation of Rs.10.00 Lacs against the OPs on account of death of Shri Pritam Singh due to electrocution as the truck of Pritam Singh struck with the wires when he was taking the same to the mechanic for repairs.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs nor the complaint is maintainable. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the OPs that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable at all and deserves to be dismissed with special costs.              

 

6.             It is the own case of the complainant in the complaint  that the deceased was residing at village Mohamadpur Rasaldar Channa and the electricity connection number S42GS220082K was installed at his residence, whereas the accident of the truck took place at Sunam Road, Sangrur.  It is not the case of the complainant that the complainant had obtained any electricity connection at Sangrur and the accident took place with that electricity connection due to the negligence of the OPs, but there is no such circumstance in this case, as such, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer of the OPs in any way.  There is no doubt that the deceased had died due to electrocution, but the Ops cannot be made responsible for that in this case.  The learned counsel for the complainant has cited The Chairman & Managing Director A.P. Transco and others versus Bhimeswara Swamy and others 2015(1) CLT 505 (NC), wherein the death of the wife of the complainant took place due to electrocution as high power transmission wire got suddenly cut and fell on her while returning home, but there are no such circumstances in the present case, as such this citation is not at all applicable in the present case.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has cited Haryana State Electricity Board versus Ganga Devi 1997(2) CLT (NC), wherein the cow belonging to the complainant electrocuted on account of its coming in the contact with electric post of Haryana State Electricity Board and the District Forum awarded compensation to the complainant against the OPs.  The appeal filed by the Op was dismissed by the State Commission. The OP filed the appeal before the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble National Commission held that since it was not a case of deficiency in service on the part of the Board in relation to the performance of any service to a consumer of electricity and the District Forum was clearly in error in allowing the complaint and awarding compensation to the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission set aside the order of the District Forum stating that the complaint of the complainant being  not a consumer dispute.  

 

7.             Without going further into the merits of the case, we find that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs and the complaint of the complainant is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

 

                Pronounced.

                January 15, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member